Whistleblower Overheard Talking Trump Impeachment Two Weeks After Inauguration

[reason10]

You can't make this kind of stuff up, boys and girls.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/01/22/whistleblower-overheard-talking-trump-impeachment-two-weeks-after-inauguration/

Whistleblower Overheard Talking Trump Impeachment Two Weeks After Inauguration
“Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella,” the CIA analyst who everybody knows is the whistleblower, “was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.
“Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues. And both expressed anger over Trump’s new ‘America First’ foreign policy, a sea change from President Obama’s approach to international affairs.”

Doesn’t that tell you a lot? Here comes Trump, America first, and the Obama people don’t like that, America first is a problem, it’s such a problem we gotta get rid of Trump. This is two weeks after inauguration.

“’Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about trying to get rid of him,’ said a White House colleague who overheard their conversation. ‘They weren’t just bent on subverting his agenda,’ the former official added. ‘They were plotting to actually have him removed from office.’ Misko left the White House last summer –”

If witnesses are to be called (which is idiotic because there are no witnesses, since no crime has been committed) the list should start with this criminal. Put him on the stand, put him under oath and make him admit the truth.

 

[Dino]

You can't make this kind of stuff up, boys and girls.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2020/01/22/whistleblower-overheard-talking-trump-impeachment-two-weeks-after-inauguration/

Whistleblower Overheard Talking Trump Impeachment Two Weeks After Inauguration
“Barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Eric Ciaramella,” the CIA analyst who everybody knows is the whistleblower, “was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.
“Sources told RealClearInvestigations the staffer with whom Ciaramella was speaking was Sean Misko. Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues. And both expressed anger over Trump’s new ‘America First’ foreign policy, a sea change from President Obama’s approach to international affairs.”

Doesn’t that tell you a lot? Here comes Trump, America first, and the Obama people don’t like that, America first is a problem, it’s such a problem we gotta get rid of Trump. This is two weeks after inauguration.

“’Just days after he was sworn in they were already talking about trying to get rid of him,’ said a White House colleague who overheard their conversation. ‘They weren’t just bent on subverting his agenda,’ the former official added. ‘They were plotting to actually have him removed from office.’ Misko left the White House last summer –”

If witnesses are to be called (which is idiotic because there are no witnesses, since no crime has been committed) the list should start with this criminal. Put him on the stand, put him under oath and make him admit the truth.

The Dems not recommending Ciaramella as a witness in impeachment proves what a laughable joke this entire process is.

 

[llovejim]

what is funny is you saying "you can't make this shit up," and then you quote Rush Limbaugh!! of course he can make shit up, the problem is only trump voters believe it!!

why does anybody believe what a person's personal feeling towards a suspect or defendant has to do with the facts that either prove the suspect or defendant is guilty or prove he is innocent? so what if he really did dislike trump and wanted him to be impeached- how does that affect all the facts and evidence that proves trump bribed Ukraine to do his own personal political bidding? do you really think if the FBI has a $5,000 reward for information on a killer or terrorist, that they care how sleazy is the guy who gives them reliable information is that leads to his arrest and conviction? why do trump voters believe every witness is clean as a whistle, has no ulterior motive, and even every cop or DA or judge or juror might be biased against anyone even charged with rape or child molesting but follow their oaths when it comes to deciding guilt on just the evidence?

when you have 17 sworn witnesses, including 2 called by republicans, all confirming everything the WB claimed he had overheard others say about the phone call and about rudy and about holding up military aid, why would you need his testimony, too? He still has a job in the government, he wants to not be punished for telling the truth, for coming forward to expose Trump's corruption and bribery, and the Whistleblower Law allows him to remain anonymous.

Only corrupt pigs want to punish him for being brave enough to get the ball rolling by coming forward with these facts corroborated by 17 other witnesses, and even by a public appearance by Trump's budget director and chief of staff Mulvaney when he admitted Trump told him to withhold the military aid to force Ukraine to do Trump's political bidding. As clearly shown here-

www.youtube.com › watch

Mick Mulvaney admits quid pro quo with Ukraine - YouTube


▶ 6:44
Oct 18, 2019 - Uploaded by ABC News
The White House acting chief of staff said President Trump ordered him to withhold military aid in part to ...

 

[Dino]

what is funny is you saying "you can't make this shit up," and then you quote Rush Limbaugh!! of course he can make shit up, the problem is only trump voters believe it!!

why does anybody believe what a person's personal feeling towards a suspect or defendant has to do with the facts that either prove the suspect or defendant is guilty or prove he is innocent? so what if he really did dislike trump and wanted him to be impeached- how does that affect all the facts and evidence that proves trump bribed Ukraine to do his own personal political bidding? do you really think if the FBI has a $5,000 reward for information on a killer or terrorist, that they care how sleazy is the guy who gives them reliable information is that leads to his arrest and conviction? why do trump voters believe every witness is clean as a whistle, has no ulterior motive, and even every cop or DA or judge or juror might be biased against anyone even charged with rape or child molesting but follow their oaths when it comes to deciding guilt on just the evidence?

when you have 17 sworn witnesses, including 2 called by republicans, all confirming everything the WB claimed he had overheard others say about the phone call and about rudy and about holding up military aid, why would you need his testimony, too? He still has a job in the government, he wants to not be punished for telling the truth, for coming forward to expose Trump's corruption and bribery, and the Whistleblower Law allows him to remain anonymous.

Only corrupt pigs want to punish him for being brave enough to get the ball rolling by coming forward with these facts corroborated by 17 other witnesses, and even by a public appearance by Trump's budget director and chief of staff Mulvaney when he admitted Trump told him to withhold the military aid to force Ukraine to do Trump's political bidding. As clearly shown here-

www.youtube.com › watch

Mick Mulvaney admits quid pro quo with Ukraine - YouTube
View attachment 47854

View attachment 47855▶ 6:44
Oct 18, 2019 - Uploaded by ABC News
The White House acting chief of staff said President Trump ordered him to withhold military aid in part to ...

Incorrect, inconsistent and wrong on so many levels.

There aren't 17 first-hand witnesses. Bringing in witnesses who've heard this information second-hand isn't nearly the same.
Also, the "whistle blower" isn't a whistle-blower at all if he's a political activist dedicated to reporting a story to try to have Trump removed. His political biases are certainly fair game in this undoubtedly political process.
Experts on both sides say you're wrong: both about whether Ciaramella should testify and that his anonymity must be protected.

Schiff is a partisan liar, proven a few times over, including what even The Washington Post deems up to a 3-Pinocchio lie: Schiff's claim that the anti-Trump rat has a statutory right to anonymity. No, wrong.

Neither the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (ICWPA) nor any related statutes have language guaranteeing anonymity for whistleblowers. These laws, in conjunction with Presidential Policy Directive 19 and Intelligence Community Directive 120, provide protections from work-related retaliation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/20/schiffs-claim-that-whistleblower-has-statutory-right-anonymity/

The case for Three: The ICWPA doesn’t include language granting whistleblowers a right to anonymity. Neither do other statutes, directives or court rulings that apply to the intelligence community. The argument that whistleblower-protection laws implicitly provide anonymity is more nuanced, and debatable, than what Schiff said in a nationally televised hearing. (And what good is a statutory right anyway if there’s no mechanism to enforce it?)

We found the case for Three Pinocchios more compelling. Schiff says the whistleblower has a “statutory right” to anonymity, and it apparently, in Schiff’s understanding, extends to congressional hearings and settings that don’t involve the inspector general. That’s debatable at best.

We note that the whistleblower opted for confidentiality by filing his complaint to the inspector general, that he’s faced a barrage of threats, and that Maguire and Atkinson have said he followed the law and should remain anonymous.

Rand Paul is no big fan of Trump, but the obviously politicized attention to Trump to protect the wrong-doing of the Bidens must be a concern brought up in the impeachment trial.
Ted Cruz, no fan of Rand Paul, agrees.
Add Nunes, Don Trump Jr, and Lindsay Graham to the mix, and it seems only a partisan and insidious bit of reasoning to keep a material witness from being allowed to give evidence in this case.


SEN. RAND PAUL: I think [alleged Ukraine whistleblower] Eric Ciaramella needs to be pulled in for testimony... he is a person of interest in the sense that he was at the Ukraine desk when Joe Biden was there and Hunter Biden was working for Ukrainian oligarchs. Simply for that, I think he is a material witness and needs to be brought in, the other question is, while the whistleblower is protected from being fired or from retaliation in court proceedings, the whistleblower is not protected from being asked who gave him the information, because we can't have a country where the private contents of the president's phone calls are leaked to people who are not supposed to be in that loop.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/13/rand_paul_ukraine_whistleblower_is_a_material_witness_and_must_testify.html

 

[middleview]

Incorrect, inconsistent and wrong on so many levels.

There aren't 17 first-hand witnesses. Bringing in witnesses who've heard this information second-hand isn't nearly the same.
Also, the "whistle blower" isn't a whistle-blower at all if he's a political activist dedicated to reporting a story to try to have Trump removed. His political biases are certainly fair game in this undoubtedly political process.
Experts on both sides say you're wrong: both about whether Ciaramella should testify and that his anonymity must be protected.

Schiff is a partisan liar, proven a few times over, including what even The Washington Post deems up to a 3-Pinocchio lie: Schiff's claim that the anti-Trump rat has a statutory right to anonymity. No, wrong.

Neither the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (ICWPA) nor any related statutes have language guaranteeing anonymity for whistleblowers. These laws, in conjunction with Presidential Policy Directive 19 and Intelligence Community Directive 120, provide protections from work-related retaliation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/20/schiffs-claim-that-whistleblower-has-statutory-right-anonymity/

The case for Three: The ICWPA doesn’t include language granting whistleblowers a right to anonymity. Neither do other statutes, directives or court rulings that apply to the intelligence community. The argument that whistleblower-protection laws implicitly provide anonymity is more nuanced, and debatable, than what Schiff said in a nationally televised hearing. (And what good is a statutory right anyway if there’s no mechanism to enforce it?)

We found the case for Three Pinocchios more compelling. Schiff says the whistleblower has a “statutory right” to anonymity, and it apparently, in Schiff’s understanding, extends to congressional hearings and settings that don’t involve the inspector general. That’s debatable at best.

We note that the whistleblower opted for confidentiality by filing his complaint to the inspector general, that he’s faced a barrage of threats, and that Maguire and Atkinson have said he followed the law and should remain anonymous.

Rand Paul is no big fan of Trump, but the obviously politicized attention to Trump to protect the wrong-doing of the Bidens must be a concern brought up in the impeachment trial.
Ted Cruz, no fan of Rand Paul, agrees.
Add Nunes, Don Trump Jr, and Lindsay Graham to the mix, and it seems only a partisan and insidious bit of reasoning to keep a material witness from being allowed to give evidence in this case.


SEN. RAND PAUL: I think [alleged Ukraine whistleblower] Eric Ciaramella needs to be pulled in for testimony... he is a person of interest in the sense that he was at the Ukraine desk when Joe Biden was there and Hunter Biden was working for Ukrainian oligarchs. Simply for that, I think he is a material witness and needs to be brought in, the other question is, while the whistleblower is protected from being fired or from retaliation in court proceedings, the whistleblower is not protected from being asked who gave him the information, because we can't have a country where the private contents of the president's phone calls are leaked to people who are not supposed to be in that loop.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/13/rand_paul_ukraine_whistleblower_is_a_material_witness_and_must_testify.html

1. The WB reported exactly what was in Trump's version of the call. He was reporting what others told him. The real reason to call him is to find and punish his sources.
2. The witnesses spoke to first hand knowledge of events...like the Rudy G. smear campaign against the ambassador, or Bolton calling it a drug deal or a decorated Lt.Col. who heard the call and felt compelled to report it.
3. If there are credible accusations against Biden, why didn't Trump's DOJ open an investigation and request help from Ukraine as is spelled out in a treaty with them?

 

[Dino]

1. The WB reported exactly what was in Trump's version of the call. He was reporting what others told him. The real reason to call him is to find and punish his sources.
2. The witnesses spoke to first hand knowledge of events...like the Rudy G. smear campaign against the ambassador, or Bolton calling it a drug deal or a decorated Lt.Col. who heard the call and felt compelled to report it.

1.
In response to the knowledge of the complaint leaked to the media, the White House broke precedent and declassified an unredacted transcript of the phone call between the two world leaders revealing no such arrangement. The “high crime and misdemeanor” unveiled in the damning transcript’s release? That Trump urged the Ukrainian president to weed out the corruption plaguing his own government and investigate Ukraine’s involvement in peddling the Russia collusion hoax that did irreparable harm to the United States. That’s the made-up crime Democrats have run on for their four-year impeachment crusade.

It is only reasonable, then, that the whistleblower testify before lawmakers in the Senate trial. Real Clear Investigations has reported the identity of the whistleblower to be Eric Ciaramella, a former intelligence employee whose profile appears to fit the description of circumstantial reporting about the alleged whistleblower.

The whistleblower’s complaint is what allegedly kicked off Democrats’ impeachment proceedings last fall. The whistleblower’s testimony would have therefore been critical in serious impeachment proceedings in the House. If Democrats are going to argue for new witnesses in the coming Senate trial, the whistleblower must come forward to offer what he or she knew to the American public before ousting their Democratically elected president.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/14/people-who-must-testify-if-the-senate-calls-new-witnesses-in-impeachment-trial/

Schiff is an undoubted and unapologetic liar....he also should testify...

The anonymous whistleblower at the heart of the impeachment case coordinated with staff working for Rep. Adam Schiff before proceeding with filing the complaint, according to The New York Times.

While Schiff denies knowing the identity of the whistleblower, which is highly unlikely, his staff undoubtedly knew and guided the impeachment process in the House with special knowledge withheld from the rest of the rest of the chamber. Given the weeks of closed-door depositions leading up to the public hearings, the knowledge of Schiff’s staff throughout the investigation would be critical to any Senate trial in which new witnesses were to be called.

Schiff’s staff should be asked under oath exactly what they knew and how it guided their decision-making moving forward leading up to impeachment and throughout the process.

2.
Anyone speaking to "first hand knowledge" of any crime should have testified before a vote to impeach was taken. The Democrats dropped the ball on that one.
Because this entire process is a SHAM.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

what is funny is you saying "you can't make this shit up," and then you quote Rush Limbaugh!!

While you post from DemocratUnderground and OccupyDemocrats , Salon etc.


Guess you missed the rest of the Mulvaney thing ? But keep posting the video. It was hilarious ! "OMG He said QPQ!!!" Gush Gush Gush !!!
This was deemed irrelevant months ago.


Of note: There’s no way Trump could have said we’re withholding the money. It was already on its way, and Mulvaney knows this.

 

[middleview]

1.
In response to the knowledge of the complaint leaked to the media, the White House broke precedent and declassified an unredacted transcript of the phone call between the two world leaders revealing no such arrangement. The “high crime and misdemeanor” unveiled in the damning transcript’s release? That Trump urged the Ukrainian president to weed out the corruption plaguing his own government and investigate Ukraine’s involvement in peddling the Russia collusion hoax that did irreparable harm to the United States. That’s the made-up crime Democrats have run on for their four-year impeachment crusade.

It is only reasonable, then, that the whistleblower testify before lawmakers in the Senate trial. Real Clear Investigations has reported the identity of the whistleblower to be Eric Ciaramella, a former intelligence employee whose profile appears to fit the description of circumstantial reporting about the alleged whistleblower.

The whistleblower’s complaint is what allegedly kicked off Democrats’ impeachment proceedings last fall. The whistleblower’s testimony would have therefore been critical in serious impeachment proceedings in the House. If Democrats are going to argue for new witnesses in the coming Senate trial, the whistleblower must come forward to offer what he or she knew to the American public before ousting their Democratically elected president.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/14/people-who-must-testify-if-the-senate-calls-new-witnesses-in-impeachment-trial/

Schiff is an undoubted and unapologetic liar....he also should testify...

The anonymous whistleblower at the heart of the impeachment case coordinated with staff working for Rep. Adam Schiff before proceeding with filing the complaint, according to The New York Times.

While Schiff denies knowing the identity of the whistleblower, which is highly unlikely, his staff undoubtedly knew and guided the impeachment process in the House with special knowledge withheld from the rest of the rest of the chamber. Given the weeks of closed-door depositions leading up to the public hearings, the knowledge of Schiff’s staff throughout the investigation would be critical to any Senate trial in which new witnesses were to be called.

Schiff’s staff should be asked under oath exactly what they knew and how it guided their decision-making moving forward leading up to impeachment and throughout the process.

2.
Anyone speaking to "first hand knowledge" of any crime should have testified before a vote to impeach was taken. The Democrats dropped the ball on that one.
Because this entire process is a SHAM.

The usual pro-Trump bullshit. That "transcript" isn't a verbatim transcript and it says so on the released document.

It, all by itself, shows the push for announcing an investigation into Biden....and the fact that you've adopted the Putin line that Ukraine helped frame Russia for interfering in the 2016 election is amusing...

Trump didn't mention corruption at all. Biden and Crowdstrike...

 

[llovejim]

Incorrect, inconsistent and wrong on so many levels.

There aren't 17 first-hand witnesses. Bringing in witnesses who've heard this information second-hand isn't nearly the same.
Also, the "whistle blower" isn't a whistle-blower at all if he's a political activist dedicated to reporting a story to try to have Trump removed. His political biases are certainly fair game in this undoubtedly political process.
Experts on both sides say you're wrong: both about whether Ciaramella should testify and that his anonymity must be protected.

Schiff is a partisan liar, proven a few times over, including what even The Washington Post deems up to a 3-Pinocchio lie: Schiff's claim that the anti-Trump rat has a statutory right to anonymity. No, wrong.

Neither the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (ICWPA) nor any related statutes have language guaranteeing anonymity for whistleblowers. These laws, in conjunction with Presidential Policy Directive 19 and Intelligence Community Directive 120, provide protections from work-related retaliation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/20/schiffs-claim-that-whistleblower-has-statutory-right-anonymity/

The case for Three: The ICWPA doesn’t include language granting whistleblowers a right to anonymity. Neither do other statutes, directives or court rulings that apply to the intelligence community. The argument that whistleblower-protection laws implicitly provide anonymity is more nuanced, and debatable, than what Schiff said in a nationally televised hearing. (And what good is a statutory right anyway if there’s no mechanism to enforce it?)

We found the case for Three Pinocchios more compelling. Schiff says the whistleblower has a “statutory right” to anonymity, and it apparently, in Schiff’s understanding, extends to congressional hearings and settings that don’t involve the inspector general. That’s debatable at best.

We note that the whistleblower opted for confidentiality by filing his complaint to the inspector general, that he’s faced a barrage of threats, and that Maguire and Atkinson have said he followed the law and should remain anonymous.

Rand Paul is no big fan of Trump, but the obviously politicized attention to Trump to protect the wrong-doing of the Bidens must be a concern brought up in the impeachment trial.
Ted Cruz, no fan of Rand Paul, agrees.
Add Nunes, Don Trump Jr, and Lindsay Graham to the mix, and it seems only a partisan and insidious bit of reasoning to keep a material witness from being allowed to give evidence in this case.


SEN. RAND PAUL: I think [alleged Ukraine whistleblower] Eric Ciaramella needs to be pulled in for testimony... he is a person of interest in the sense that he was at the Ukraine desk when Joe Biden was there and Hunter Biden was working for Ukrainian oligarchs. Simply for that, I think he is a material witness and needs to be brought in, the other question is, while the whistleblower is protected from being fired or from retaliation in court proceedings, the whistleblower is not protected from being asked who gave him the information, because we can't have a country where the private contents of the president's phone calls are leaked to people who are not supposed to be in that loop.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/13/rand_paul_ukraine_whistleblower_is_a_material_witness_and_must_testify.html

actually, they were first hand witnesses. you are just too uninformed to know what that means. when a witness is under oath, everything they say is FIRSTHAND. especially in an impeachment hearing, which is not a court of law, anyway. For instance, it is firsthand evidence to say I had a discussion with Sondland where he told me Rudy was Trump's contact, go to, bag man in Ukraine, and we needed to work with him to get Zelensky to agree to investigate the Bidens or not get the military aid. THAT IS FIRST HAND EVIDENCE. Sondman, as his youtube video shows, gave first hand evidence of a quid pro quo, and he said, under oath, everyone was in on it, and knew it was a quid pro quo. Why do you lie about everything? How can anyone not give first hand evidence? Did anybody claim anything they had not personally observed or overheard? what are you even talking about?

and screw dumbass punk rand paul. the whistleblower's claims have been verified and confirmed by 17 witnesses, 2 of them called by repubs, under oath testimony. rand is a punk ass bitch who needs his ass kicked, again. by a 60 year old dentist.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

1.
In response to the knowledge of the complaint leaked to the media, the White House broke precedent and declassified an unredacted transcript of the phone call between the two world leaders revealing no such arrangement. The “high crime and misdemeanor” unveiled in the damning transcript’s release? That Trump urged the Ukrainian president to weed out the corruption plaguing his own government and investigate Ukraine’s involvement in peddling the Russia collusion hoax that did irreparable harm to the United States. That’s the made-up crime Democrats have run on for their four-year impeachment crusade.

It is only reasonable, then, that the whistleblower testify before lawmakers in the Senate trial. Real Clear Investigations has reported the identity of the whistleblower to be Eric Ciaramella, a former intelligence employee whose profile appears to fit the description of circumstantial reporting about the alleged whistleblower.

The whistleblower’s complaint is what allegedly kicked off Democrats’ impeachment proceedings last fall. The whistleblower’s testimony would have therefore been critical in serious impeachment proceedings in the House. If Democrats are going to argue for new witnesses in the coming Senate trial, the whistleblower must come forward to offer what he or she knew to the American public before ousting their Democratically elected president.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/14/people-who-must-testify-if-the-senate-calls-new-witnesses-in-impeachment-trial/

Schiff is an undoubted and unapologetic liar....he also should testify...

The anonymous whistleblower at the heart of the impeachment case coordinated with staff working for Rep. Adam Schiff before proceeding with filing the complaint, according to The New York Times.

While Schiff denies knowing the identity of the whistleblower, which is highly unlikely, his staff undoubtedly knew and guided the impeachment process in the House with special knowledge withheld from the rest of the rest of the chamber. Given the weeks of closed-door depositions leading up to the public hearings, the knowledge of Schiff’s staff throughout the investigation would be critical to any Senate trial in which new witnesses were to be called.

Schiff’s staff should be asked under oath exactly what they knew and how it guided their decision-making moving forward leading up to impeachment and throughout the process.

2.
Anyone speaking to "first hand knowledge" of any crime should have testified before a vote to impeach was taken. The Democrats dropped the ball on that one.
Because this entire process is a SHAM.

This was debunked months ago.

BUT My Low I.Q. leftists base can NOT let go of it. And will keep arguing it. Because why? There is nothing !

"Oh my step brother's 3rd cousins sister who's mechanic has a brother who's nephew is a janitor in the White House, he heard from a friend at the bar that Trump is a bad guy"

Impeach !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dino]

The usual pro-Trump bullshit. That "transcript" isn't a verbatim transcript and it says so on the released document.

It, all by itself, shows the push for announcing an investigation into Biden....and the fact that you've adopted the Putin line that Ukraine helped frame Russia for interfering in the 2016 election is amusing...

Trump didn't mention corruption at all. Biden and Crowdstrike...

I guess you think I have amnesia.

During the House hearings, the witnesses the DEMOCRATS called all testified that the transcript accurately portrays the phone conversation they were told about.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/witnesses-grade-trump-zelensky-call-transcript-11572696000

It's a SHAM, that's why the Democrats are full of excuses why people Ciaramella and neither Biden nor Schiff should need testify. Bogus!

 

[llovejim]

While you post from DemocratUnderground and OccupyDemocrats , Salon etc.


Guess you missed the rest of the Mulvaney thing ? But keep posting the video. It was hilarious ! "OMG He said QPQ!!!" Gush Gush Gush !!!
This was deemed irrelevant months ago.


Of note: There’s no way Trump could have said we’re withholding the money. It was already on its way, and Mulvaney knows this.

Edited that is why i keep posting the video OF MULVANEY SAYING TRUMP TOLD HIM TO WITHHOLD THE MONEY AND YOU STILL CANNOT ACCEPT IT..

the General Accounting Office recently found Trump guilty of illegally freezing that money and you still spew bullshit like a trump voter? wake the hell up.

EVEN FOX NEWS HAS TO ADMIT IT-

www.foxnews.com › politics › gao-says-trump-admin-broke-law-ukraine

GAO says Trump administration broke law by withholding ...


7 days ago - The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a legal opinion on Thursday saying that President Trump's administration broke the law by ...
You visited this page on 1/16/20.
thehill.com › homenews › 478557-gao-finds-trump-administration-brok...

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding ...


7 days ago
GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid ... violated the law, the Government ...
www.cnn.com › gao-report-administration-violated-law-withholding-aid

GAO concludes Trump administration broke law by ... - CNN.com


7 days ago - The Government Accountability Office said the Trump administration broke the law when it withheld US security aid to Ukraine last year that had ...
www.politico.com › news › 2020/01/16 › white-house-violated-the-la...

White House violated the law by freezing Ukraine aid, GAO says

7 days ago - White House violated the law by freezing Ukraine aid, GAO says ... President Donald Trump ordered the hold on the critical security assistance ...

 

[Dino]

actually, they were first hand witnesses. you are just too uninformed to know what that means. when a witness is under oath, everything they say is FIRSTHAND. especially in an impeachment hearing, which is not a court of law, anyway. For instance, it is firsthand evidence to say I had a discussion with Sondland where he told me Rudy was Trump's contact, go to, bag man in Ukraine, and we needed to work with him to get Zelensky to agree to investigate the Bidens or not get the military aid. THAT IS FIRST HAND EVIDENCE. Sondman, as his youtube video shows, gave first hand evidence of a quid pro quo, and he said, under oath, everyone was in on it, and knew it was a quid pro quo. Why do you lie about everything? How can anyone not give first hand evidence? Did anybody claim anything they had not personally observed or overheard? what are you even talking about?

and screw dumbass punk rand paul. the whistleblower's claims have been verified and confirmed by 17 witnesses, 2 of them called by repubs, under oath testimony. rand is a punk ass bitch who needs his ass kicked, again. by a 60 year old dentist.

Nice semantics.
Quid pro quo remains not illegal and its use not an abuse of power.
You ignored the things I absolutely detonated in your post.

Your bullshit.....

 

[Nutty Cortez]

I had a discussion with Sondland where he told me Rudy was Trump's contact, go to, bag man in Ukraine, and we needed to work with him to get Zelensky to agree to investigate the Bidens or not get the military aid. THAT IS FIRST HAND EVIDENCE. Sondman, as his youtube video shows, gave first hand evidence of a quid pro quo, and he said, under oath, everyone was in on it, and knew it was a quid pro quo. Why do you lie about everything?

Wrong as usual.
What was stated was they needed to know what an investigation was stopped. Not investigate the Bidens.

So that Lie of Yours is destroyed and if you keep having on it. You choose to be ignorant.


Sondland OH the revised testimony guy

1. I did not (and still don't) know why aid was held up
2. I "PRESUMED" it was because of corruption
3. I told Yermak my assumption






It's pretty important that Sondland says he was making presumptions and still does not know why aid was actually suspended. (You leave that out every time)

Since neither of those things happened- You know it's nothing. You choose to be willfully ignorant !


Thanks !

 

[llovejim]

I guess you think I have amnesia.

During the House hearings, the witnesses the DEMOCRATS called all testified that the transcript accurately portrays the phone conversation they were told about.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/witnesses-grade-trump-zelensky-call-transcript-11572696000

It's a SHAM, that's why the Democrats are full of excuses why people Ciaramella and neither Biden nor Schiff should need testify. Bogus!

and the repub called witnesses also testified that the phone call was close to what they remember...so what? zelensky knew the aid had been held up by July, since the Pentagon released it after vetting it in April!! do you think they do not have contacts with the Pentagon or with legislators or with news sources who reported this? are you nuts? and trump clearly says, we need you to do us a favor, though....knowing zelensky needs the dough Trump has frozen, and then specifically tells him to allow lapdog rudy and lapdog asskissing AG Barr to "help" him dig up dirt from 3 years ago on Biden, not corruption in general, but specifically biden and the goofy ass Crowdstrike theory even trump voters do not believe, in order to help Trump personally and politically, no part of any official US foreign policy, which IS WHAT ALL THE WITNESSES CONFIRMED.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

Edited that is why i keep posting the video OF MULVANEY SAYING TRUMP TOLD HIM TO WITHHOLD THE MONEY AND YOU STILL CANNOT ACCEPT IT..

the General Accounting Office recently found Trump guilty of illegally freezing that money and you still spew bullshit like a trump voter? wake the hell up.

EVEN FOX NEWS HAS TO ADMIT IT-

www.foxnews.com › politics › gao-says-trump-admin-broke-law-ukraine

GAO says Trump administration broke law by withholding ...
View attachment 47857

7 days ago - The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a legal opinion on Thursday saying that President Trump's administration broke the law by ...
You visited this page on 1/16/20.
View attachment 47859thehill.com › homenews › 478557-gao-finds-trump-administration-brok...

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding ...
View attachment 47858

7 days ago
GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid ... violated the law, the Government ...
View attachment 47862www.cnn.com › gao-report-administration-violated-law-withholding-aid

GAO concludes Trump administration broke law by ... - CNN.com
View attachment 47861

7 days ago - The Government Accountability Office said the Trump administration broke the law when it withheld US security aid to Ukraine last year that had ...
View attachment 47860www.politico.com › news › 2020/01/16 › white-house-violated-the-la...

White House violated the law by freezing Ukraine aid, GAO says
View attachment 47863
7 days ago - White House violated the law by freezing Ukraine aid, GAO says ... President Donald Trump ordered the hold on the critical security assistance ...

(sigh)

The OMB disagrees, citing past precedent of latitude being given to Presidents to manage appropriations in accordance with policy initiatives.

“We disagree with GAO’s opinion,” Semmel said. “OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President’s priorities and with the law.”

Also, the ICA has a procedure DIRECTLY on point regarding a failure of the executive branch to convey a special message giving a rationale for withholding aid. Again, it isn't impeachment:








The other issue here that makes this decision by the GAO questionable is that the aid was released before it was legally required to be appropriated.

In other words, these are administrative machinations by which the law calls for administrative fixes to. There will be no criminal charges and impeachment is not a recommended remedy for any scenario under the current statutes.



You got hammered here Jim. Look I know you are visual- videos and such. But facts and law are on my side.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

and the repub called witnesses also testified that the phone call was close to what they remember...so what? zelensky knew the aid had been held up by July, since the Pentagon released it after vetting it in April!! do you think they do not have contacts with the Pentagon or with legislators or with news sources who reported this? are you nuts? and trump clearly says, we need you to do us a favor, though....knowing zelensky needs the dough Trump has frozen, and then specifically tells him to allow lapdog rudy and lapdog asskissing AG Barr to "help" him dig up dirt from 3 years ago on Biden, not corruption in general, but specifically biden and the goofy ass Crowdstrike theory even trump voters do not believe, in order to help Trump personally and politically, no part of any official US foreign policy, which IS WHAT ALL THE WITNESSES CONFIRMED.

LOL The only one who said 'dig up dirt' was Schiff. When he lied on the House floor. So I guess you want him impeached ?

 

[Nutty Cortez]

Nice semantics.
Quid pro quo remains not illegal and its use not an abuse of power.
You ignored the things I absolutely detonated in your post.

Your bullshit.....

View attachment 47864

Nuked-
He got slaughtered on this topic.

Just his copy and paste from OccupyDemocrats, Facebook and MSNBC.

Expect a profane word salad of 839204 characters soon.

 

[Nutty Cortez]

Back On Topic:

You won’t be surprised to hear that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who had listened to the call, was their “mutual ally.” According to former NSC co-workers and congressional sources, Vindman leaked information about the call to Ciaramella the next day.

Vindman had filled Ciaramella’s previous position at the NSC, but “the two officials continued to collaborate through interagency meetings.”

Vindman leaked what he’d heard to Ciaramella by phone that afternoon, the sources said. In their conversation, which lasted a few minutes, he described Trump’s call as “crazy,” and speculated he had “committed a criminal act.” Neither reviewed the transcript of the call before the White House released it months later.

NSC co-workers said that Vindman, like Ciaramella, openly expressed his disdain for Trump whose foreign policy was often at odds with the recommendations of “the interagency” — a network of agency working groups comprised of intelligence bureaucrats, experts and diplomats who regularly meet to craft and coordinate policy positions inside the federal government.

Vindman’s commanding officer, Army Lt. Col. Jim Hickman, complained that Vindman, then a major, “was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly and really talked up Obama and globalism to the point of [It being] uncomfortable.”

“Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as 2012,” Hickman, now retired, asserted. “Do not let the uniform fool you. He is a political activist in uniform.”

 

[llovejim]

Wrong as usual.
What was stated was they needed to know what an investigation was stopped. Not investigate the Bidens.

So that Lie of Yours is destroyed and if you keep having on it. You choose to be ignorant.


Sondland OH the revised testimony guy

1. I did not (and still don't) know why aid was held up
2. I "PRESUMED" it was because of corruption
3. I told Yermak my assumption

View attachment 47865




It's pretty important that Sondland says he was making presumptions and still does not know why aid was actually suspended. (You leave that out every time)

Since neither of those things happened- You know it's nothing. You choose to be willfully ignorant !


Thanks !

BULLSHIT. Edited nobody can be this stupid on purpose. good god. you act like the only way you can find someone of being guilty of bribery is if you catch Trump giving Zelensky a check for 391 million dollars in a back-street alley at midnight and Zelensky hands Trump at the same time A promissory note to publicly announce the investigation into the Bidens from 3 years ago. good god. no bribery case is that cut and dried. you have to hear all the evidence you can, and most of it will not be physical or videotaped or recorded or texted!! there has to be overheard conversations connected to actual events- in this case, the withheld military aid and trump's phone call asking for the favor!! any bribery case is hardly ever any more clear cut than this...